08-26-2011, 04:46 PM
[quote name='gnatsum' timestamp='1314369169' post='11052']
Just confused how you are disappointed because an $800 lens performs well but not up to a socially acceptable standard of price / performance. Canon makes some horrible L lenses for 2-3x the cost and they don't receive a "disappointed" but they have excuses for being poor performers "creative potential" or "It's okay because it's meant for low light"...not an excuse for performing poorly and being sold for $1.5k to $2.5k
Just take a stand and say then lens is good, full stop. Bollocks to the trolls who complain about price performance, because they wouldn't buy it anyway (sour grapes).
Now that olympus has made this 12mm and the 45mm is coming, I'm dying to dump 35mm digital for m4/3 and just use medium format film for serious work and m4/3 for the rest... armed with a 12mm 20mm (lumix) and 45mm you can do a LOT of reportage work (obviously not things like sports or working in harsh environments)
[/quote]
If the lens for 1.5k which perfoms poorly in formal testing can give me 1000 Euro income of licensing fees a year, because customers love the look I can achieve with it, I pretty much dont care if it could be better for the price. Any modern lens is good enough for nearly every situation. If you find the quality of Canon or Nikon professional lenses lacking in practical shooting you are probably better off shooting medium format anyway.YOu buy lens for a particular application not for absolute sharpness.That beeing said, my best earning lenses are canons 28/1.8 and 24-105 and 17-40. According to all test the 17-40 has soft corners. Is this practically relevant? No it isnt. At f/4 there is nothing in the corners that needs sharpness and landscape are taken atf/9- f/11 where the lens is plenty sharp. Neither my agency nor my gallery has ever complained about technical quality of the photos I took with any of the lenses.
Just confused how you are disappointed because an $800 lens performs well but not up to a socially acceptable standard of price / performance. Canon makes some horrible L lenses for 2-3x the cost and they don't receive a "disappointed" but they have excuses for being poor performers "creative potential" or "It's okay because it's meant for low light"...not an excuse for performing poorly and being sold for $1.5k to $2.5k
Just take a stand and say then lens is good, full stop. Bollocks to the trolls who complain about price performance, because they wouldn't buy it anyway (sour grapes).
Now that olympus has made this 12mm and the 45mm is coming, I'm dying to dump 35mm digital for m4/3 and just use medium format film for serious work and m4/3 for the rest... armed with a 12mm 20mm (lumix) and 45mm you can do a LOT of reportage work (obviously not things like sports or working in harsh environments)
[/quote]
If the lens for 1.5k which perfoms poorly in formal testing can give me 1000 Euro income of licensing fees a year, because customers love the look I can achieve with it, I pretty much dont care if it could be better for the price. Any modern lens is good enough for nearly every situation. If you find the quality of Canon or Nikon professional lenses lacking in practical shooting you are probably better off shooting medium format anyway.YOu buy lens for a particular application not for absolute sharpness.That beeing said, my best earning lenses are canons 28/1.8 and 24-105 and 17-40. According to all test the 17-40 has soft corners. Is this practically relevant? No it isnt. At f/4 there is nothing in the corners that needs sharpness and landscape are taken atf/9- f/11 where the lens is plenty sharp. Neither my agency nor my gallery has ever complained about technical quality of the photos I took with any of the lenses.